The simple public rejection by mainstream figures or institutions in the world of a ‘one-state solution’ to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as some point out, is just the latest manifestation of people thinking about the Middle-East they want. Not looking at the region as it is and thinking of how to improve the prospects based on the current problems. Like idealism, thinking about what you want as opposed  to what is possible, in anything, just counts as self-delusion.

Either something is on the horizon and hence possible, or it’s not. If it’s not, why talk about it? It just smacks of grandstanding. Supposedly a bad thing when politicians do it, surely it is when activists or writers sitting in a cafe with the cigarette in one hand, inhaling, then moving the cigarette back and claiming ‘a one-state solution will end the problem’ visually looks good, and fancy, to the casual viewer. But if it’s not realistic it’s just as silly as saying Turkey should be admitted to the EU tomorrow morning despite its drift away from meeting membership conditions.

Absence of the conditions for anything should be the consideration. Wanting is not enough. Wanting is not the same as getting, as they say.

As Einat Wilif (former M.K) wrote in response to Perry Anderson’s nonsensical call for one:

“If either Jews or Arabs living in a territory under a single governing framework operate under the belief that the other people as individuals, are not their equals, and that as a collective they do not possess the equal right to be in the territory of the state, they would merely use the mechanisms of the state, as well as violence, to oppress the other people and try to push them out of that territory. Peaceful democratic life together would not be possible.

The intellectual argument for a one-state solution collapses if any of the sides can demonstrate they have good reason to believe that the single-state framework would deny them justice and equality. When religious supremacist Jews argue for a one-state solution, conveniently excluding Palestinians in Gaza and the Diaspora and offering convoluted responses to the questions of whether there will be civic equality for all, Arabs can make a very strong case that such a ‘solution’ is not promoted in good faith, and that Palestinian Arabs could not expect to be treated justly or equally in such a state.

That is more than enough to reject any such plans.”

Not just in politics, but even in life generally, it seems that anything that isn’t inherently simple is simplified anyway. If you reply politely ‘It’s a little more complex then that’ the other person will sometimes stop for a few seconds before responding. Just as with stereotypes; there’s a lot of factors involved, a one-liner slogan easily flies off the tongue. But it tells the listener/reader less about the issues than the persons’ views/ideological convictions. Outcomes count more than slogans ever will.

Movements like BDS might of late be gaining more attention than usual but their lack of positions and inconsistencies on a number of fundamental points only further makes their ‘one-state’ agenda sound more hollow. How would it work/or happen? You can’t read it anywhere, just slogans.

Their success isn’t total, not even on US college campuses despite what you may hear. BDS Suffers Setbacks at Vassar, Northeastern and Indianapolis in Single Week. Part of the cost though is the increase in anti-Semitic incidents which only taint their cause. So it’s a mixed bag on that front. Simplistic sloganeering followed by ugly hate crimes; dare I predict a quick if not slow decline and collapse of the campaign in a year or so.